Author Topic: Engine for Shark 45 (Read 2762 times)

Brian Massey · « **on:** March 06, 2009, 09:55:01 AM »

I'm getting ready to start building a Shark 45 from a kit that was purchased in the early 70's (I think), or perhaps the late 60's. My only engines are several Fox 35's and McCoy Redhead 40's. The members of the club I've just joined (PC Flyers, Fresno, CA) don't think either engine will "deliver the mail" in the Shark.

I've been away from this for so long I just don't know the "new larger" engines; to me a .40 is a "big" engine. I was considering the ST .51 and was told that was to small. I was also told that the Fox .60 with the ceramic liner is suspect.

I'm still old fashion enough that I want a good 4-2-4 run. I'll be using a home made clunk tank without pressure.

Any ideas??

Brian

John Miller · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:08:41 AM »

Brian, if the weight is reasonable, most engines at least .46 sized should handle the plane fine. The ST .51 is as powerful as the older ST V.61.

Dennis Vander Kuur · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2009, 11:09:53 AM »

Brian,
I know of several fliers who fly Shark 45 planes in the stunt contests I attend. Most are powered by SuperTigre .51 engines. Dan McEntee has been flying and winning with his SuperTigre .51 powered Shark 45 for years here in the midwest. He uses an APC 12.25x3.75 prop. Hope this helps.
DennisV

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2009, 11:13:17 AM »

Brian,
there is another engine to consider. Brodak is now offereing an Aviastar (?) .61 that is reported to be a very solid engine. reasonable weight, and a fair price. It hasnt been out a long time but by reports it should be a good performer.

Balsa Butcher · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2009, 11:59:35 AM »

All good suggestions and add the Enya .61sx (available from Randy and others) to the list. Now, about the kit, I know you didn't ask but - you would be doing yourself a favor if you sold your original kit on the Bay and bought a new RSM kit of the Shark 45. With plans by Pat Johnston and the excellent wood that Eric uses the finished product will be lighter, stronger and easier to build...really

Robert Zambelli · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:05:48 PM »

The best sounding, best flying Shark 45 I've ever seen was last years at Brodaks, powered by a Surpass 52.

Dr. Tom, from Brazil.

Bob Z.

Brian Massey · « **Reply #6 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:38:49 PM »

Good Idea Pete about ebaying the old kit. The kit seems to be complete, but the box is "tattered" at best. On the plus side, the box is adorned with some possom poop from a visiting critter a few years ago.

I'm flying a Ringmaster now from a kit saved from the 60's and have to admit the wood had hardened and was hard to work with at times. The die cutting also left a lot to be desired. If flys like a Ringmaster though.

All the engine ideas sound good, but I do kind of like the ST 51; hmmmmm.

Thanks everyone for your input. This forum is great!

Brian

Brian Massey · « **Reply #7 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:58:19 PM »

Another thought before I finalize an engine decision: just what does a typical Shark 45 weight when completed?? I checked the box but did not find that info available.

I'm drawn towards the ST 51 but a fellow club member has an Avistar 61 and thinks that's the way to go. If the completed weight is much over 50 oz then maybe the 61 is a better choice.

Brian

Paul Smith · « **Reply #8 on:** March 06, 2009, 06:48:55 PM »

I've got a Shark 45 kit in the build bin for when I decide to pull the trigger on assemby.

I have a K&B Greenhead 45 and also a couple ST 46's that I might use. It's 'posed to be a CLASSIC, so I figured on using the actual engine, or at least an engine of The Day. Prior the latest rules change (thin lines & weak pull test) I was thinking of using a heathly 40 to get by on .015 lines, but now that tactic is passe'.

I can't see weighing down a 45-plane with a 51 or 60.....

Glenn (Gravitywell) Reach · « **Reply #9 on:** March 06, 2009, 07:14:13 PM »

If your considering the ST .51, try going here for the best prices and good service. And no...I have no affiliation with them!

http://www.sshobbies.com/motors.html

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #10 on:** March 07, 2009, 08:34:54 PM »

Paul: You do realize that the K&B Lew used in his Sharks wasn't the same Greenhead you could buy at the hobby shop?? John Brodbeck (or maybe Bill Wisniewski - That was a l-o-n-n-g time ago) built "specials" for Lew, and you never saw/heard stronger Greenhead .45's! If you insist on something that's period-correct, try a Fox .59 or an ST .56 . . .

Brian: I spoke with Lew about this a couple of years ago, and he suggested using a Saito .56. Also, remember that the Jetco kit tended to build quite heavy, so be prepared to substitute wood freely. The RSM kit is vastly superior.

Brian Massey · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:46:22 AM »

Ralph, thanks for the input. Is that the Saito .56 4 stroke Lew was referring to? I'm not familier with the Saito line of engines and in a quick search all I saw was 4 stroke RC engines listed. Do you have any idea about how much weight difference the new kit will make?

Thanks again.

Brian

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2009, 11:57:52 AM »

Right you are, Brian. Saito now offers a C/L version of the .56, which weighs at least an ounce less than the R/C engine. I have heard reports that the factory C/L engines are not as powerful/flexible as the UHP-equipped engine, but I have no experience here. You might check the SH archives on this.

Based strictly on boxed kit weight, the RSM Shark, due to superior wood selection, should build at least 8 oz. lighter than the Jetco. Additional savings in glue will occur during construction, as the RSM kit has all full-size pieces (except the fuselage which must be spliced due to length) as opposed to the Jetco which frequently assembles a part from many small pieces.

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2009, 05:46:20 AM »

My Shark will be Saito powered whenever I get around to building it. I would buy whatever Saito 56 I could get the best deal on and do not discount used RC engines. Basic engines are all the same, CL, RC or Golden Knight. The new RC engines come with a heavier muffler than the CL version but either one can be made to produce as much quality power as anyone needs for anything up to about 700 sq/in and <70 ounces. The heaviest airplane I have with a 56 is my Score at 68 ounces and it isn't lacking for anything.

The trick to getting the most out of a Saito is giving it the ability to draw big gulps of fuel and tuning the intake to the prop. I haven't played with a CL 56 but drilling out the spray hole in a CL 40 to the same size as a PA spray bar really made it come alive. I would suspect the CL 56 might have the same issue.

Mike Scholtes · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2009, 10:15:42 AM »

I don't know if you need anyone else to jump on this bandwagon, but I vote with Pete and the others who say forget the Jetco and get an RSM kit if you really want a Shark 45. I have an RSM Shark 45 and have looked into an ancient Jetco kit ... no comparison by any measure. Or, you could get an RSM Shark 35 if you just want the "Shark" look and power it with any of the great 40-46 engines now available.

Speaking of engines I used a Frank Bowman modified ST 51 in my Score and it was plenty of power. Several Shark 45s were at VSC with similar ST 51's with no lack of performance. A really good and inexpensive engine. My Score now has an Enya 61CXS Pro, an awesome engine.

RandySmith · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:09:52 AM »

Quote from: Brian Massey on March 06, 2009, 09:55:01 AM

I'm getting ready to start building a Shark 45 from a kit that was purchased in the early 70's (I think), or perhaps the late 60's. My only engines are several Fox 35's and McCoy Redhead 40's. The members of the club I've just joined (PC Flyers, Fresno, CA) don't think either engine will "deliver the mail" in the Shark.

I've been away from this for so long I just don't know the "new larger" engines; to me a .40 is a "big" engine. I was considering the ST .51 and was told that was to small. I was also told that the Fox .60 with the ceramic liner is suspect.

I'm still old fashion enough that I want a good 4-2-4 run. I'll be using a home made clunk tank without pressure.

Any ideas??

Brian

HI Brian

Here are a few motors that will power the Shark very well

ST G 51 new
ST 60
ST 46
ST 51 old
ST 56 OLd
Enya 45
Enya 50SS
Enya 61
OS SF 46
PA 40 SE
PA 51 SE
PA 61 SE
PA65 SE
Magnum 52
Magnum 53
Saito 56
Satio 62
Thunder Tiger 46
VECO 45
McCoy 45
FOX 59
OS 50
OS 52 4C

I have seen Sharks fly with most every engine I listed
I agree with the buy an RSM Shark. save store or sell the Jetco one

Randy

Ralph Wenzel (d) · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2009, 01:59:19 PM »

McCoy .45?? Some kind of special? Or maybe . . . Nah, I give up. Where'd this come from, Randy?

Brett Buck · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2009, 01:05:23 AM »

Quote from: Brian Massey on March 06, 2009, 09:55:01 AM

I'm getting ready to start building a Shark 45 from a kit that was purchased in the early 70's (I think), or perhaps the late 60's. My only engines are several Fox 35's and McCoy Redhead 40's. The members of the club I've just joined (PC Flyers, Fresno, CA) don't think either engine will "deliver the mail" in the Shark.

I've been away from this for so long I just don't know the "new larger" engines; to me a .40 is a "big" engine. I was considering the ST .51 and was told that was to small. I was also told that the Fox .60 with the ceramic liner is suspect.

I'm still old fashion enough that I want a good 4-2-4 run. I'll be using a home made clunk tank without pressure.

Oh my goodness, you would need two McCoy 40's for this airplane. I saw the original (larger) version fly a lot of patterns with an ST46, but I would think you want an ST51, bare minimum. If it was me, I would get any of the following RO-Jett 61 or 50, PA 61 or 65. An alternative would be a Saito 56. I would avoid anything that has no history or development behind it like the new Fox, or engines that are hard to find or find parts for like the Retro, etc. or the ST60.

There's absolutely no reason to not have enough reliable power, or to monkey around with vintage engines or something that no one else is running. Quality engines with lots of experienced help available are easy to get and better than anything that came before them.

Brett

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #18 on:** March 14, 2009, 06:31:30 AM »

We've had three Shark 45's in recent years, in the Pacific NW. Two with ST .60's weighed 70 oz or more, and yet flew well. Pat Johnston's own Shark 45 weighed 52 oz. with a Magnum XL .53, which I consider ideal power, because it's smaller than a ST G.51 and the slender nose looks more like the original design. I'm not sure how many of these were made from RSM kits, but maybe all three. Wake turbulence got Pat's '45', but the last year or two, he's been flying a Shark 35, with a .46LA...nice combination, tho a Magnum XLS .36, Brodak .40, Aero Tiger .36, or Rustler-Merco .40 would also be sweet.

Steve

RandySmith · « **Reply #19 on:** March 15, 2009, 10:37:54 PM »

Quote from: Ralph Wenzel on March 09, 2009, 01:59:19 PM

McCoy .45?? Some kind of special? Or maybe . . . Nah, I give up. Where'd this come from, Randy?

Hi Ralph fingers misfired I meant to type K&B 45 , but there are a few oversized McCoys :-)

Randy